1 👥 Cohort Description
Age and Sex Distribution
Cohort Overview
| Characteristic | N = 1471 |
|---|---|
| Age | – |
| Median (Q1, Q3) | 37 (34, 44) |
| Unknown | 13 |
| Age group | – |
| age ≥15-<25 | 1/134 (0.7%) |
| age ≥25-<35 | 45/134 (34%) |
| age ≥35-<45 | 62/134 (46%) |
| age ≥45-<55 | 19/134 (14%) |
| age ≥55 | 7/134 (5.2%) |
| Unknown | 13 |
| Sex | – |
| Female | 38/134 (28%) |
| Male | 96/134 (72%) |
| Unknown | 13 |
| Period | – |
| First Three Days | 74/147 (50%) |
| Last Two Days | 73/147 (50%) |
| Years of Professional Experience | – |
| Median (Q1, Q3) | 11 (8, 17) |
| Unknown | 13 |
| Experience in VHF Response | 101/134 (75%) |
| Unknown | 13 |
| The IDTM is an Advantage to the Systems Used in the Past | 117/121 (97%) |
| Unknown | 26 |
| Envisioning Usage of IDMT in the Future | – |
| Yes | 121/121 (100%) |
| Unknown | 26 |
| 1 n/N (%) | |
Cohort by Period
| Characteristic | Overall N = 1471 |
First Three Days N = 741 |
Last Two Days N = 731 |
p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | – | – | – | 0.67 |
| Median (Q1, Q3) | 37 (34, 44) | 37 (34, 43) | 37 (34, 44) | – |
| Unknown | 13 | 8 | 5 | – |
| Age group | – | – | – | 0.89 |
| age ≥15-<25 | 1/134 (0.7%) | 1/66 (1.5%) | 0/68 (0%) | – |
| age ≥25-<35 | 45/134 (34%) | 22/66 (33%) | 23/68 (34%) | – |
| age ≥35-<45 | 62/134 (46%) | 32/66 (48%) | 30/68 (44%) | – |
| age ≥45-<55 | 19/134 (14%) | 8/66 (12%) | 11/68 (16%) | – |
| age ≥55 | 7/134 (5.2%) | 3/66 (4.5%) | 4/68 (5.9%) | – |
| Unknown | 13 | 8 | 5 | – |
| Sex | – | – | – | 0.78 |
| Female | 38/134 (28%) | 18/66 (27%) | 20/68 (29%) | – |
| Male | 96/134 (72%) | 48/66 (73%) | 48/68 (71%) | – |
| Unknown | 13 | 8 | 5 | – |
| Years of Professional Experience | – | – | – | 0.66 |
| Median (Q1, Q3) | 11 (8, 17) | 11 (8, 17) | 12 (8, 18) | – |
| Unknown | 13 | 8 | 5 | – |
| Experience in VHF Response | 101/134 (75%) | 50/66 (76%) | 51/68 (75%) | 0.92 |
| Unknown | 13 | 8 | 5 | – |
| The IDTM is an Advantage to the Systems Used in the Past | 117/121 (97%) | 58/61 (95%) | 59/60 (98%) | 0.62 |
| Unknown | 26 | 13 | 13 | – |
| Envisioning Usage of IDMT in the Future | – | – | – | – |
| Yes | 121/121 (100%) | 61/61 (100%) | 60/60 (100%) | – |
| Unknown | 26 | 13 | 13 | – |
| 1 n/N (%) | ||||
| 2 Wilcoxon rank sum test; Fisher’s exact test; Pearson’s Chi-squared test | ||||
2 📊 Survey
Overall
First Three Days
Last Two Days
3 🧰 Statistical Evaluation
3.1 ⏰ By Period
3.1.1 Overall
Observed Response
Overall, people were slightly more likely to give higher ratings in the Last Two Days (p-value = 0.14).
Predicted Probabilities
3.1.2 By Variables
Significance of Period Effect by Question
Predited Probabilities by Variable
Annoying – Enjoyable
Not understandable – Understandable
Creative – Dull
Easy to learn – Difficult to learn
Valuable – Inferior
Boring – Exciting
Not interesting – Interesting
Unpredictable – Predictable
Fast - Slow
Inventive – Conventional
Obstructive – Supportive
Good – Bad
Complicated – Easy
Unlikable – Pleasing
Usual – Leading edge
Unpleasant – Pleasant
Secure – Not secure
Motivating – Demotivating
Meets expectations – Does not meet expectations
Inefficiant – Efficient
Clear – Confusing
Impractical – Practical
Organized – Cluttered
Attractive – Unattractive
Friendly – Unfriendly
Conservative – Innovative
3.2 👨🏽⚕️Experience in VHF Response
3.2.1 Overall
Observed Response
Overall, there was no difference in rating between participants with and without previous experience in VHF response (p-value = 0.33).
Predicted Probabilities
3.2.2 By Variables
Significance of experience Effect by Question
Predited Probabilities by Variable
Annoying – Enjoyable
Not understandable – Understandable
Creative – Dull
Easy to learn – Difficult to learn
Valuable – Inferior
Boring – Exciting
Not interesting – Interesting
Unpredictable – Predictable
Fast - Slow
Inventive – Conventional
Obstructive – Supportive
Good – Bad
Complicated – Easy
Unlikable – Pleasing
Usual – Leading edge
Unpleasant – Pleasant
Secure – Not secure
Motivating – Demotivating
Meets expectations – Does not meet expectations
Inefficiant – Efficient
Clear – Confusing
Impractical – Practical
Organized – Cluttered
Attractive – Unattractive
Friendly – Unfriendly
Conservative – Innovative
